This WaPo weeper tries to paint the Flight 253 jihadist as a poor, lonely boy, but what comes through loud and clear is that he was a very serious and devout Muslim. How is it that someone so committed to Islam could have misunderstood Islam so thoroughly as to think he had a religious duty to murder unbelievers. "In online posts apparently by Detroit suspect, religious ideals collide," by Philip Rucker and Julie Tate for the Washington Post, December 29 (thanks to Undaunted):
The 23-year-old Nigerian man accused of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner apparently turned to the Internet for counseling and companionship, writing in an online forum that he was "lonely" and had "never found a true Muslim friend.""I have no one to speak too [sic]," read a posting from January 2005, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was attending boarding school. "No one to consult, no one to support me and I feel depressed and lonely. I do not know what to do. And then I think this loneliness leads me to other problems."
The Washington Post reviewed 300 online postings under the name "farouk1986" (a combination of Abdulmutallab's middle name and birth year). The postings mused openly about love and marriage, his college ambitions and angst over standardized testing, as well as his inner struggle as a devout Muslim between liberalism and extremism. In often-intimate writings, posted between 2005 and 2007, he sought friends online, through Facebook and in Islamic chat rooms: "My name is Umar but you can call me Farouk." He often invited readers to "have your say" and once wrote, "May Allah reward you for reading and reward you more for helping." [...]
Fabrizio Cavallo Marincola, 22, who studied with Abdulmutallab at University College London, said Abdulmutallab graduated in May 2008 and showed no signs of radicalization or of links to al-Qaeda. "He always did the bare minimum of work," Marincola said of his classmate, who he said was nicknamed "Biggie."
"When we were studying, he always would go off to pray," Marincola continued. "He was pretty quiet and didn't socialize much or have a girlfriend that I knew of."
As a student at the British boarding school in Togo, Farouk1986 wrote that he was lonely because there were few other Muslims. "I'm active, I socialise with everybody around me, no conflicts, I laugh and joke but not excessively," he wrote in one posting seeking counseling from online peers. "I will describe myself as very ambitious and determined, especially in the deen. I strive to live my daily live [sic] according to the quran and sunnah to the best of my ability. I do almost everything, sports, TV, books . . . (of course trying not to cross the limits in the deen)." The deen is a religious way of life....
Actually, the deen is the religion. He is saying that he does everything within the limits of what is allowed in Islam.
In his January 2005 posting about his loneliness, Farouk1986 wrote about the tension between his desires and his religious duty of "lowering the gaze" in the presence of women. "The Prophet (S) advised young men to fast if they can't get married but it has not been helping me much and I seriously don't want to wait for years before I get married," he wrote....He also wrote of his "dilemma between liberalism and extremism" as a Muslim. "The Prophet (S) said religion is easy and anyone who tries to overburden themselves will find it hard and will not be able to continue," he wrote in 2005. "So anytime I relax, I deviate sometimes and then when I strive hard, I get tired of what I am doing i.e. memorising the quran, etc. How should one put the balance right?"
In December 2005, Farouk1986 wrote that his parents were visiting him in London and that he was torn about whether he could eat meat with them. "I am of the view meat not slaughtered by Muslims . . . is haram [forbidden] for consumption unless necessary," he wrote. "My parents are of the view as foreigners, we are allowed to . . . eat any meat. It occured [sic] to me I should not be eating with my parents as they use meat I consider haram. But I fear this might cause division and other complicated family problems."
He pleaded: "Please respond as quickly as possible as my tactic has been to eat outside and not at home till I get an answer."
Abdulmutallab, the youngest of 16 children and the son of the second of his father's two wives, was raised at the family home in Kaduna, a city in Nigeria's Muslim-dominated north. At boarding school, Farouk was easygoing and studious, earning the sobriquet "Alfa," a local term for Muslim clerics, because of his penchant for preaching Islam to colleagues, according to family members.
"Farouk was a devoted Muslim who took his religion seriously and was committed to his studies," said an uncle. "He was such a brilliant boy and nobody in the family had the slightest thought he could do something as insane as this."
Although Farouk hardly ever stayed in Nigeria and would visit only for holidays, family members and neighbors on Ahman Pategi Street in the rich Unguwar Sarki neighborhood in Kaduna also said he was easygoing and passionate about Islam. "He was of course a very religious, polite and studious fellow," said a cousin, "but it was unthinkable that he would do anything close to attempting to bomb a plane."
Well then, it's clear that we infidels must take it upon ourselves to make sure Muslims aren't lonely, perhaps hook them up with female friends or even family...and then, presumably, the problems of terrorism will be alleviated.
The Wapo makes me sick.
Where are our liberal contributors now? What have they to say about mainstream media apologia like this?
"Farouk was a devoted Muslim who took his religion seriously and was committed to his studies," said an uncle. "He was such a brilliant boy and nobody in the family had the slightest thought he could do something as insane as this."
Why not? Why wouldn't a "devoted Muslim who took his religion seriously" do what Farouk did the other day, and what kind of Muslim parents or family would not, at this moment in the world's history, where Muslims now are permitted to jostle up against, even settle deep within the lands of, non-Muslims, without any change in the texts or tenets of Islam, and with all the unsettlement such settlement can cause, on both Muslims, who become steadily more aggressive when they realize that they are not, as they believe they should, dictate to non-Muslims and, in fact, must adjust to non-Muslim ways. That Muslims should have to endure this situation, should have to wait a bit, until their numbers and power increases, until they can call the shots, and the Infidels are reduced to, at best, the same status they would have in countries where Islam now dominates, and Muslims rule, is simply, for many of them, unacceptable and for some, nearly intolerable. That Infidels insist on pursuing their own lives, following their own laws and customs that are so unlike those of Muslims, and that they refuse the Truth of Islam, when it is offered to them - why, they even seem to think their countries, the countries of Europe and North America, are better run, are more just, are for all of their many faults altogether superior to those of Muslim lands, and this too infuriates, when Muslims know that they possess the Truth, and that no Infidels can possibly be treated as equals, much less regarded as superior in their legal and political institutions, for that would contradict what Islam inculcates, and how, after all, can any Muslim tolerate that?
If that idiot had taken his "religion" seriously, maybe he would have learned that his beloved prophet-pedophile mahound is said to have referred to black people like him as raisin heads and pug-nosed slaves. And that, to this day, in keeping with the example of uswa hasana, all-insane all-kamel, the words that Arab mahoundians mostly use to refer to black people is Abd and Abed, which mean slave in its singular and plural form.
And, had he taken mahoundianism so seriously, he'd have quit it for Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, agnosticism or atheism, since those creeds (or lack thereof) make much more sense to a black person than nazislam.
"How is it that someone so committed to Islam could have misunderstood Islam so thoroughly as to think he had a religious duty to murder unbelievers."
Good Morning, Robert! ...and what a good point!
I think some of the best -- or worst, depending on ones perspective; some of the best LIARS out there are those that promote the notion that this man, along with so many other muslims, have misunderstood Islam. No they haven't, because the Quran is very clear: kill the infidels, kill the jews.
Gee, I wonder if this "body bomber" bothered to check to see how many of those-types were on board flight 253. Bet he didn't care. He only had his eye on the prize ...Sex Heaven!
If a patriotic American, in the 1960's had gone to the Soviet Union, and blown himself up, taking out the top brass in the Kremlin, Americans would say "That's just crazy, I can't believe he would do that. That's so extreme."
They would not, however, believe that communism was a good way of life.
I am awkward here, but I am trying to say that all of these incredulous interviewees shouldn't be interpreted as saying "He oughtn't have done that.", but moreso "He was really out there how he tried to solve the problem of the infidel...very rash and extreme." It doesn't mean they think infidels are okay.
Wapo has no follow up question for these silly interviews ("He seemed like such a nice boy, he was so quiet, he was such a good family man, etc. etc."). 'Why do you think he wanted to kill Americans?' might have been a good one.
Dudes,
It's not about this poor schmuck. There are poor, despondent, horny, lonely, depressed, suicidal people in every culture, land and clime.
It's about the Arab/muhammadan puppet-masters in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan who will use these retards as so much disposable collateral in their war to the finish against the infidel nation states.
Obviously this guy was a loser. His arab masters in Yemen thought so too.
It is amazing how they all seem to "misunderstand" their own religion in uniformity, isn't it?
The WAPO piece is typical for them and their ilk. There has to be other reasons behind this willful act of violennce besides Islamic jihad. Most minds can not and will not process and acknowledge the reality that Islam is anything but a religion of peace.
Mountains of empirical evidence that has been provided support that it is indeed not a religion of peace at all, but those who see the truth are still overwhelmingly in the minority.
Well, at least we can be certain Philip Rucker and Julie Tate from the Washington Compost are not lonely, rejected or devout enough muslims who could potentially turn on us at any given moment, attacking the kufr in the dar-ul-harm central, the UnitedDhimmi States of Amrika.
Instead they are busy bees rifling through the Washington Compost's trash bins assembling rotting chicken skins and potato peels with maggot infested old Nigerian canned yams together, very artfully, to peddle them as "Fresh Picked Strawberries and Real Whipped Cream", and at half price too!
Wonder why no one is buying, hmm!
What a strange world in which the WaPo must live. They have no sense of reality, truth, or who they are unless I am to assume that they have a definite goal in their intentional deception. They ignore real facts and create lies or myths to fit the great voids in their story. Is this the product of what our modern education system produces these days?
I personally believe that they are devoid of anything that we could classify as intelligent. Real propagandists do operate intelligently.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab seems to have been an intelligent man who says he tried to avoid becoming excessive in his religious applications of being Muslim. Assuming this was the case, at what point in the last couple of years did he lose that balance he was trying to hold to? Who came into his vulnerable and serious Islamic life than would lead him to take the journey of becoming a jihadist warrior for Allah?
Tragically there are thousands of other young vulnerable Muslim men out there that are searching for what they believe may be their religious duty in the Quran.
There are Muslim facilitators among us in the US and EU Countries that are recruiting these warriors for allah all the time and some are very open and public with their aspirations. These Muslims are enablers even if they do not come in contact with a Young man who fits the profile of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In the US they can openly be found on the streets of Jackson Heights, New York, in a basement in Queens, and in areas around Minneapolis or Dearborn, aand training in a camp called Islamberg where all the men who trained there have suddenly vanished, not to mention Mosques and madrasses.
The 23-year-old Nigerian man accused of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner apparently turned to the Internet for counseling and companionship, writing in an online forum that he was "lonely" and had "never found a true Muslim friend."
...............................
I think what Abdulmutallab meant here is that he hadn't met anyone sufficiently Jihad-minded yet—but he found those "true Muslim friends" in Yemen...
more:
In December 2005, Farouk1986 wrote that his parents were visiting him in London and that he was torn about whether he could eat meat with them. "I am of the view meat not slaughtered by Muslims . . . is haram [forbidden] for consumption unless necessary," he wrote. "My parents are of the view as foreigners, we are allowed to . . . eat any meat. It occured [sic] to me I should not be eating with my parents as they use meat I consider haram. But I fear this might cause division and other complicated family problems."
...............................
Poor Abdulmutallab! Well, every other person who keeps Kosher, or who observes Lent, or any number of other strictures faces this sort of all-too-common issue.
I'm the only vegetarian in my family. Some are sympathetic, but much of my family lives in far Northern California and the Northwest, and assumes that pretty much anything short of fresh-killed game should be OK for vegetarians.
Eating out is no better—I've been to diners where even the french fries are smothered in meat gravy.
So what? When I visit, I always eat too much cheese, appreciate what I am served, and try not to wonder too much what's in the sauce.
I have never—so far, you know—felt that blowing up an airliner would be the best response to any of this.
have 2 easy solutions to the "Terrorist on a Commercial Plane Problem":
1) Issue one out of 5 passengers who are American citizens with no criminal and Muslim-nation travel history a Tazor.
2) Publish the planes passenger list on the digital board 1 hour before flight time so passengers can do their own profiling and decide for themselves whether they want to get on a plane with anyone with Abdullah, Muhammed, Hussein or any other Muslim name in their name. Then the airlines can decide whether they want to do a heck of a lot of rescheduling, or bump the suspicious character, or put a full-time Air Marshal Muslim-Sitter on the plane next to the guy. Since taxpayers have bailed out the Airline industry in the past, we can demand that the tickets be valid for at least a few days.
NO MORE INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHTS AND PRIVACY OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS TO MAINTAIN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS FOR A FEW!
"I will describe myself as very ambitious and determined, especially in the deen. I strive to live my daily live [sic] according to the quran and sunnah to the best of my ability. I do almost everything, sports, TV, books . . . (of course trying not to cross the limits in the deen)."--Umar Farouk
Islamic "deen" means something rather different than the modern Western conception of religion. Deen is a way of life, having to do with loyalty, obedience, submission, membership in a collective, and fulfillment of duty.
Islam is not only a religion, or an ideology, or a political system. Islam is a project. A critical distinction we need to make for our fellow non-Muslims is that for the vast majority of Muslims Islam is not just a religion but that it is a project. It is both a personal and a political project to implement Islamic norms, words, deeds, laws, and thoughts, everywhere. Ideologies can remain dead things in books on the shelf. Religions can be confined to aspects of worship. Islam is primarily about some people (the believers) regulating everybody's behavior. Muslims cannot just keep this to themselves; they are required to force this onto others, while also denying that they are doing precisely that.
Muhammad in the Hadith claims that Allah gave him all of the earth, that Allah gathered all of the earth for Muhammad to see and said that Islam will rule over all that was gathered. The Quran says that Islam is a message to all humankind and is an offer that the often unsuspecting non-Muslims cannot refuse. That's the project that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was, and still is (with ensuing legal jihad, etc.), pursuing.
"He was such a brilliant boy and nobody in the family had the slightest thought he could do something as insane as this."
That's what they all say...It's required...
'I have no one to speak too'...
His problems began when he started talking to Allah...Or worse, Allah started talking to him...Conversing with Allah often causes a psychotic reaction...If you have an interest in maintaining your sanity, it's best not to talk to Allah...
Kinana,
When Allah gave the prophet of Islam (PBUH) all of earth, were the Catholics, Protestants, Budhists, Hindus, Atheists, Gays and many more copied on this memo?
It sure as hell would have saved all of battles and deaths of innocents who were unaware of Allah's grandiose plan. Sounds like someone dropped the ball, and is not very merciful?
Its very confusing why Allah created the entire Universe, all different kinds of people but only favored the muslims. What's up with that?
Yes, to someone so All-Knowing, you'd think he wouldn't create something as unworthy and dirty as an infidel.
Porkfried,
"Its very confusing why Allah created the entire Universe, all different kinds of people but only favored the muslims. What's up with that?"
The Quran says that Allah created some people as fuel for hell, others as slaves to be exploited or traded, others so that they could be used to test Muslims (i.e., to test Muslims in battle; in other words, non-Muslims are kind of like dummies to be used for target practice, or sparring partners, etc.; the Quran says that Allah uses some people, i.e., non-Muslims, to test others, i.e., Muslims). According to the Quran, no one becomes a Muslim except by Allah's decision. The Hadith adds that the dhimmis were a source of livelihood for Muhammad and his family. It is clear to me from the Quran, Hadith, and Sira that, from the Islamic perspective, non-Muslims were created as, among other things, war booty and possessions for Muslims, or as unwitting enablers to be exploited by Muslims.
The only other use for non-Muslims is as potential converts to Islam, whereby Muslims are supposed to receive extra rewards in Paradise for converting non-Muslims to Islam. An important form of non-violent jihad by which a Muslim can prove himself or herself to Allah is through da'wa, attempting to convert as many people as possible to Islam, thereby expanding the umma and supposedly saving souls. At the same time, Muslims are given the task of using the "iron" (57:25) that Allah brought down for them so that they can enforce "justice," by keeping the non-Muslims in check (2:251, 47:4) and killing them if necessary to make an example of them and so that Allah can assign them to hell-fire.
So essentially, from the Islamic perspective, non-Muslims were created so that Muslims could use them and so that Muslims could be tested in various ways in relation to them.
Kinana
Interesting post and nice piece of analysis from the textual evidence.
Interesting thing is, your conclusion (reached by looking at the texts) is identical with that reached by a Westerner who had lived in Morocco for years and who had drawn *his* conclusion, it seems, not from looking at the texts but by experiencing the everyday demeanour and conduct of common-or-garden Moroccan Muslims.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/20345
Here is part of the article:
"INTERVIEWER: But isn't there a special psychological dimension to the situation of a foreigner living in Morocco? It seems to me that a foreigner here is often looked upon automatically as a kind of victim.
BOWLES: Well, he *is* a victim.
'The Moroccans wouldn't use the word. They'd say *"a useful object."* {my emphasis - dda}.
'They believe that they, as Moslems, are the master group in the world, and that God {i.e. allah - dda} allows other religious groups to exist principally for them to manipulate.
'*That seems to be the average man's attitude*." END EXCERPT.
One should add that a western clinical psychologist, if encountering a human being who views other human beings as things, as objects (like furniture, or a domestic animal) that exist solely for his own convenience (to be destroyed or discarded, if they cease to be profitable or amusing, or are reclassified as a 'threat'), will diagnose either out and out sociopathy, or malignant narcissism. Such people are classified as sick, and do seem in some cases not to have 'chosen' to be and behave as they are, but to have been 'born that way' (those who deliberately choose such conduct, are evil). Whereas in Islamic society, people born neurologically *normal* are violently 'reprogrammed', by the example of Muhammad and the teachings of Islam, to behave in what we would understand as a sociopathic/ malevolently narcissistic - and therefore, frankly, *evil* - manner, toward non-Muslims; while the 'born sociopaths', of course, find themselves in a society where they are not even perceived of as ill, where their evil is *good*; a society that massively reinforces and *approves* of their monstrous pathology (so long as they express it toward the proper objects, that is, non-Muslims, and insufficiently-islamic Muslims, and girls who have committed 'zina', etc.).
If one grasps that the Ummah, considered broadly as a sort of gestalt, is suffused with the idea that anyone non-ummah is a *thing* existing solely for the profit of the ummah, then one ceases to be bewildered by the fact that, for example, in the Armenian jihad-genocide, Muslims who had lived 'peacefully' alongside non-Muslims, even treating them as 'friends' or employing them as farm workers, suddenly turned upon them with frenzied ritualistic murderousness. The Armenians had simply been reclassified as a different kind of object. Their profitability *now* consisted not in their temporal and material utility, but in their 'eternal' utility, that is, their function as human sacrifice: each ritually-murdered Armenian constituted a 'ticket to paradise' for the jihadist Muslim who killed him or her.
Here is a continuation of the theme:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091229/ap_on_re_af/af_airliner_attack_internet_postings;_ylt=As5aGD0YIOnjeeSz8mas3Eus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ0NmZiZGM4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjI5L2FmX2FpcmxpbmVyX2F0dGFja19pbnRlcm5ldF9wb3N0aW5ncwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzUEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3dlYnBvc3Rzc3VnZw--
It really is not remarkable. You could say that it was an attitude similar to the old segregationists who would not use the same accomodations or facilities used by blacks and insisted upon their own apart from them Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was and is a supremacist bigot. I see not a whit of virtue in his attitudes. Umar was following such beliefs to their logical conclusion.
dda,
Thanks; that's a good article at New English Review (by Hugh). The themes that emerge from the Islamic texts seem to be realized to a considerable extent in Islamic societies, probably because of the long-standing, far-reaching enforcement of sharia. The anger and contempt toward the "infidels" that is promoted in the Islamic texts, as well as the view that the non-Muslims are like wayward domestic animals (and the Quran says as much) to be used, plundered, exploited, and bought and sold, would seem to contribute to the Muslims' dehumanization of non-Muslims, as you describe. It doesn't seem many Western psychologists and psychiatrists, except a few like Wafa Sultan and a couple of others I recall interviewed on Front Page Magazine, want to look at this. (As I recall, Ali Sina has indicated he himself has a background in psychology also). Wafa Sultan and Ali Sina would also know the psychology of Islam from the inside out, having been Muslims themselves.
"..that Muslims should have to endure this situation, should have to wait a bit, until their numbers and power increases, until they can call the shots, and the Infidels are reduced to, at best, the same status they would have in countries where Islam now dominates, and Muslims rule, is simply, for many of them, unacceptable and for some, nearly intolerable."
This {psycho}analysis implies that such Muslims just "snap" at a certain point due to the extraneous factor of the Islamo-cognitive dissonance between the Muslim's feeling of having his Islamic right to dominate contrasted with his experience of being denied that right within the context of Western society.
However, while this may be a co-incident factor, more important than this is to understand that any and all terror attacks of any flavor whatsoever -- whether running over people in your SUV, stabbing someone in his office, shooting people at random, or blowing up an airplane, etc. -- are specifically contextualized in the blueprint of Islam, both its texts and its tradition, as part of the broader military strategy of chipping away at a temporarily superior enemy through the specific use of terror.
Each terror attack, and each planned or feigned terror attack, serves this military strategy of chipping away at the tegument of the temporarily superior enemy: even in a relatively non-PC enemy, repeated terror attacks can cause disarray, both psychological and societal, as well as the kind of fear that seeks appeasement of one sort or another rather than the resolve to fight fire with fire in the interest of self-defense.
Muslims in the past 50 years must be shaking their heads in incredulity at the sheer serendipity that has fallen in their laps -- namely, that this currently still formidable enemy, the West, also happens to have an elaborate, complex and deeply entrenched sociopolitical culture of a stupidity that consistently serves to favor the ongoing Jihad of Muslims -- both the stealth Jihad and the blatantly violent Jihad: for each time the latter occurs, the West becomes more sensitive, respectful and protective of Muslims, not less, as it would were its people and leaders rationally conscious of the important interest of self-preservation.
At any rate, while Hugh's {psycho}analysis of the latest jihadist du jour may apply, it is more likely, especially given this Nigerian jihadist's knowledge of Islam, that he believed his act of instilling more terror in the enemy was one noble and crucial and pragmatic cog in the grand project of Jihad, to wear the enemy down through the stillicide of terror.
"Its very confusing why Allah created the entire Universe, all different kinds of people but only favored the muslims. What's up with that?"
----
In any video game, you need enemy "bots" to shoot at. No, but seriously. When Muslims tell us "there is no compulsion in religion" they are telling the Allah's own truth (verses about only one religion on the peninsula notwithstanding).
Mohammed was no dummy. On a number of occasions he can be seen admonishing his men for unnecessary killing and pointless proselytisation. He prefers to describe it in less mercenary terms by saying Allah has predestined them to their fate, and that they are sub-human anyway, but what he really means is infidels are necessary to maintain the Islamic lifestyle. "Much of the fat on your belly comes from that man's labours."
Attila and Genghis had it all wrong. You don't just raze everything or enslave a whole nation, there's no future in that and too much work. No, set up an Islamic system wherein the Muslims occupy the privileged top rung and the dhimmis do all the grunt work. You make sure the leaders have absolute authority, so no ridiculous crap like democracy, unions, or human rights get started up, and you're in Islamic heaven on earth (minus the 72 virgins).
THAT'S what Muslims mean by a return to the Golden Age of Islam. That's what’s going through the minds of the Palestinian staring across the West bank wall into Israel or the Moroccan NYC cabbie staring at the WTC towers: This ain't the way it was supposed to BE.
Thank you all for the deep drilling of the cerebrum, and providing thought provoking material.
Any good reads out there on the Armenian genocide? What and and how the Turkish muslims degenerated into this cold bloodletting frenzy without regret or an ounce of remorse. How does a normal functioning human being, in this case a muslim get programmed into a robotic state of mind to commit genocide of this scale.
Your responses are greatly appreciated.
Noel and Happy Holidays.
PorkFriedLies,
I don't have a definitive explanation for the grotesquely violent fanaticism of Muslims, but here's a glimpse into the phenomenon. This is not about the attempted genocide of Armenians, but about an example of mass violence perpetrated by ordinary Muslims. This was witnessed by the journalist Oriana Fallaci, some time I believe in the 1970s, in Bangladesh. She first saw 12 men executed in a stadium. At the same moment, apparently, she saw a little boy throw himself into the execution to save his relative, one of the ones being executed. The little boy was killed and his head smashed by their boots. Then she saw the audience, some 12,000 Muslims, file down to the site of the execution and mash the dead bodies under their feet until the bodies were unrecognizable bloody pulps -- all the while chanting "Allah Akbar".
Scroll down when you get to this link; I believe the Oriana Fallaci quote Hugh was quoting comes from her famous book "The Rage and the Pride":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/09/fitzgerald-the-problem-of-pakistan.html
In my estimation -- and I'm an agnostic -- the evil of Muslims cannot be explained through ordinary analyses, of psychology or sociology. We must conclude that they are collectively possessed by Satan, though a precious handful manage to escape that possession.
Pork Fried Lies wrote:
Any good reads out there on the Armenian genocide?
.............................
The best thing I have read is Peter Balakian's wrenching book, "The Burning Tigris", which covers the genocide in its several waves during the late 19th and early 20th centuries—
during both the last days of the Ottoman Empire and the early days of Attaturk's Turkey.
Another good book—although not especially understanding of Jihad, it is otherwise admirably exhaustive—is Giles Milton's "Paradise Lost", about the savage destruction of the Christian city of Smyrna in 1922.
Both books not only give a disturbing idea of outright Jihad on a dhimmi population, but also the reaction from the Western powers that might have saved them—denial, distraction, and "real politik".
Things haven't changed that much.
Re the Armenian genocide:
*The* book to read is probably the one by Vahakn Dadrian: History of the Armenian Genocide. He had access to original Turkish and German documents.
There is an earlier work, Reverend K. Balakian’s eyewitness narrative Hai Koghota (The Armenian Golgotha.
There is this article by Andrew Bostom.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/04/bostom-the-jihad-genocide-of-the-armenians.html
which includes some horrifying excerpts from original accounts.
And there is this: an original report from the ground, as published in the New York Times.
These links will take you to the website where I found a transcript and discussion, plus the links back to a pdf file of the report.
http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3209:the-slaughter-of-christians-in-asia-minor&catid=262:archived-newspaper-articles
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F02E3DE143EE033A25751C2A96E9C946897D6CF&scp=186&sq=christian+massacre&st=p
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F02E3DE143EE033A25751C2A96E9C946897D6CF
My apologies.
The newspaper report which I linked in my posting above, refers not to the main mass killing of Armenian Christians (and Christians of other ethnicities) which occurred in 1915-1916, but to an earlier Muslim mass murder of Armenian Christians that took place - with the full complicity of the Turkish Muslim government - in Cilicia in Turkey in 1909.
Thank you all once again for sharing your important thoughts and your resources. It will be very useful to refresh and catchup on the history of the Armenian people and other human tragedies, if only to pay homage to the victims of islamic violence and to keep their memory alive.